In 1998, one year after stepping down as Hong Kong governor, Chris Patten published East and West, a chronicle of his experiences in the former British colony. In chapter 2 Patten gives the following description: "... One after another, Chinese officials would accuse me of having broken the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. `How have I done so?' I would respond ....`Well,' they would usually claim somewhat lamely, `you have at least broken the spirit of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.' `What do you mean by the spirit? Do you just mean that you disagree with me? Why not then discuss what I have done? Put forward your own proposals.' `We cannot put forward our own proposals until you return to the spirit of the text.' The circles spun and looped; the arguments twisted and turned; the greased pig wriggled about the room; defying capture."
Reading the book is a sobering experience, even four and half years after the handover. One can give a highly accurate description of the cross-strait situation by simply substituting "Joint Declaration and Basic Law" with "1992 consensus" -- the purported agreement that continues to stir up controversy across the Taiwan Strait. The Chinese Communist Party uses the same negotiation tactics against Taiwan, as it did with the British. One has to wonder whether the controversy over whether there was ever a "1992 consensus" is simply part of Beijing's propaganda and psychological warfare -- and a complete waste of time.
If the Chen Shui-bian (
The dispute is simply aimed at misleading the Taiwanese and the international community. Nevertheless, we hear some in the international community, who know little about the "1992 consensus" and yet are too willing to spout off about it.
Recently, a senior US official in Washington DC told a reporter from Taiwan: "Of course, the two sides had a `most basic consensus' before they held the Koo-Wang talks." The remarks came at a sensitive time in Taiwan's election campaign. The pro-unification media in Taiwan magnified the significance of these remarks by giving them extensive coverage. Beneath the headlines, however, one was hard put to find any clue as to the meaning of the so-called consensus. The official did not explain, but the damage was already done.
The motive of Taiwan's pro-unification media was clear: they wanted to use Uncle Sam's words to teach the Chen government a lesson. At the same time, many of Beijing's stooges who are candidates in the elections are using the US official's remarks to attack their rivals.
In fact, we know from the statements of former president Lee Teng-hui (
US officials should take the time to read Patten's book and learn from his Hong Kong experience. The US should neither force Taiwan to the negotiation table nor subject it to humiliation before China removes all of its pre-conditions and begins to interact rationally with Taiwan and the rest of the world. US officials should also be careful about the content and timing of their remarks lest they become Beijing's accomplices.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS